Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,509 posts)
2. The anti-nuke "renewables will save us" author, Benjamin Sovacool, thinks deep sea mining is OK.
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 11:08 AM
Sep 2021

Finally recognizing the material impacts of his "renewables will save us" rhetoric on material flows, he says, "Don't worry, be happy, we can find metals for wind turbines on the ocean floor!"

This guy, who has an undergraduate degree in philosophy and a Ph.D. in something called "Public Policy," and whose Ph.D. thesis involved in part, interviewing an unnamed power company executive, is somehow allowed to comment on the work of real engineers and real scientists in prestigious scientific journals, even though he was recently forced to retract one of his antinuke papers on the value of putative European approaches to climate change after being called out for non-existent or sloppy data.

His realization about the metal impacts of so called "renewable energy" popped into his dangerous little brain back in 2020 where he wrote this precious policy piece: Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. (Sovacool, Science, 3 JANUARY 2020 • VOL 367 ISSUE 6473, pp 30-33)

Apparently having worked to kill off the atmosphere, and destroy the land masses, he wants to finish off the oceans. After pretending to give a shit about cobalt miners for his "green" vision - like most anti-nukes his pretense of giving a shit is nothing more than lip service - he waxes romantic on seabed mining. To wit, this "policy piece" contains this dangerous rhetoric:

Although mining in terrestrial areas is likely to continue to meet the demands of low-carbon technologies in the nearer term, we need to carefully consider mineral sources beneath the oceans in the longer term. The International Seabed Authority, set up under the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea, is in the process of issuing regulations related to oceanic mineral extraction. This process is a rare opportunity to be proactive in setting forth science-based environmental safeguards for mineral extraction. For metals such as cobalt and nickel, ocean minerals hold important prospects on the continental shelf within states' exclusive economic zones as well as the outer continental shelf regions. Within international waters, metallic nodules found in the vast Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the Pacific as well as in cobalt and tellurium crusts, which are found in seamounts worldwide, provide some of the richest deposits of metals for green technologies. Difficult extraction and declining reserves of some terrestrial minerals, as well as social resistance against terrestrial mining, may lead to oceanic mineral reserves becoming more plausible sources. Minerals near hydrothermal vents are in more pristine and distinctive ecosystems and should likely remain off-limits for mineral extraction for the foreseeable future.


Because he has almost no knowledge of the carbon implications of mining on land or on sea, or of the carbon implications of metal refining, his "policy" is to make ever more convoluted arguments to pretend that Fukushima outweighs climate change and the massive number of daily deaths from air pollution.

He is, like many in these times, a stupid but very dangerous man.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»We have just two years to...»Reply #2